How about a newbie working his C, trying to save some time, unbuckles the driver's side shoulder belt, reaches in to turn the ignition and the auto seat belt takes his scalp off? That's a classic move.

I've done that once. That's all it took. Never did it again. It also works the other way around. Start the car up, go look in engine bay, shut car off through window. Ouch.

Originally Posted by Deutschbag

WHAT. That god damned bolt is reverse threaded?!?! Haha I've been struggling with that off and on for like a god damn year. Basically just resigned to having that door handle not work. I'm going to go fix it right now.

Hahahahah I figured SOMETHING was up when it felt like it was getting tighter and tighter. But still, even if these parts were used for all Pre MK3 cars, why was it originally designed that way?

Originally Posted by turtledub

Why on earth did they include the widowmaker? So much for repeat customers.

I guess they figured if you have to use it for anything besides changing a tire (which is fine) you're not going to want to buy another corrado anyway.

I wasn't thinking in terms of logic, I was asking you a question. You made the statement and I was wondering what basis you had for it.

You make some of the most profound statements on the forum and I want to know why you made it. The 1.8T is a great engine in my opinion but I also know that it fell victim to sludging resulting in a class action lawsuit settlement. Surprisingly it dissapeared when the mk5 was released.

I have already stated why the 1.8t is a better engine: it makes more power from the factory, it is lighter, it is cheaper to modify. At the top it makes similar power to the vr but the 1.8t does it out of less displacement which means less weight and cost. Quantitatively the 1.8t is better.

So is the turbo I4 platform. All they did was remove an intake valve to add direct injection, and give it a displacement bump. VRs also feature direct injection and extra displacement nowadays. To say that the 1.8t "disappeared" is to gloss over the fact that the 12v VR6 did as well. Both platforms are alive and well, and incorporating modern technologies as they arise.

I have already stated why the 1.8t is a better engine: it makes more power from the factory, it is lighter, it is cheaper to modify. At the top it makes similar power to the vr but the 1.8t does it out of less displacement which means less weight and cost. Quantitatively the 1.8t is better.

More power? Yeah with help from a turbocharger. Strip it of its turbo or add (hypothetically) a factory turbo to the vr6 and let's do comparisons. What does engine weight have to do with anything, where are you getting your dollar value for being cheaper to build?

Do they get special exemptions from the machine shop? Rods are more money, cams are more money, and most other parts are just the same in price for both.

Let's talk bottom end strength too. 1.8t rods have a threshold of 300 ft. Lbs. of torque before they grenade, vr6 platforms have been known to run up to 525hp on a stock bottom end.

I'm not gonna go any further with this but to say something solely based on the fact that you don't like a certain engine is horse****.

More power? Yeah with help from a turbocharger. Strip it of its turbo or add (hypothetically) a factory turbo to the vr6 and let's do comparisons. What does engine weight have to do with anything, where are you getting your dollar value for being cheaper to build?
Do they get special exemptions from the machine shop? Rods are more money, cams are more money, and most other parts are just the same in price for both.

Let's talk bottom end strength too. 1.8t rods have a threshold of 300 ft. Lbs. of torque before they grenade, vr6 platforms have been known to run up to 525hp on a stock bottom end.

I am not sure if you are aware of this BUT we are comparing an engine with a turbo to one without one not hypothetical examples of adding a turbo etc etc. But if you want to go that way I will.

Of course engine weight has significance as by having a 1.8t there is a roughly 75 pound saving on weight making the car less nose heavy. This is particularly important in the fwd VW platform- the real world application of the two engines.

Dollar to dollar it is clear that moderate gains are more readily made with the 1.8t which is already boosted. A chip can make gains unachievable by a vr without expensive addition of a turbo or supercharger.

As far as high dollar tuning I would guess the cost to build would be similar since more valves etc on a 1.8t but more $ for 6 pistons, rods. As for the strength of factory bottom ends it depends on which 1.8t, but here is 490WHP on stock bottom end AEB: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?1915946/page1

It is pretty clear that the 1.8t is superior to a 12v vr6 in terms of value (mid-level), performance (75 pounds lighter) and efficiency (same power out of less displacement). As I said before that doesn't mean it is "better" to you since you could like some qualitative aspects of it. However, it is quantitatively superior.

I am not sure if you are aware of this BUT we are comparing an engine with a turbo to one without one not hypothetical examples of adding a turbo etc etc. But if you want to go that way I will.

Of course engine weight has significance as by having a 1.8t there is a roughly 75 pound saving on weight making the car less nose heavy. This is particularly important in the fwd VW platform- the real world application of the two engines.

Dollar to dollar it is clear that moderate gains are more readily made with the 1.8t which is already boosted. A chip can make gains unachievable by a vr without expensive addition of a turbo or supercharger.

As far as high dollar tuning I would guess the cost to build would be similar since more valves etc on a 1.8t but more $ for 6 pistons, rods. As for the strength of factory bottom ends it depends on which 1.8t, but here is 490WHP on stock bottom end AEB: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?1915946/page1

It is pretty clear that the 1.8t is superior to a 12v vr6 in terms of value (mid-level), performance (75 pounds lighter) and efficiency (same power out of less displacement). As I said before that doesn't mean it is "better" to you since you could like some qualitative aspects of it. However, it is quantitatively superior.

I am going to disagree. 1 front end heaviness has nothing to do with performance if you're calling superior in straight line grunt power. 6 Plugs > 4 Plugs. Sometimes less is more which is why they did away with the 20v. You want to boot up a bigger turbo, FMIC and programming then so be it. But I am sure with a simple HG spacer and basic bolt on kit a boosted VR will easily hold its own.

Now if you choose balls out vs balls out then there truely is no replacement for displacement. What ever you do to a smaller engine I can do the same to a larger displacement engine and I guarantee I make more power.

So now if you chose we can turn this into the MKIV forums and argue all day about the VR6 > 1.8T war but bottom line one won't convince the other. It's not going to happen. Now mind you with the passive aggressive closing statement of your opinion doesn't make you right.

Agree to disagree. I have owned both. Far more VR's than 20v's but this is a pointless battle. Your opinion is not swayed by my statements and mine will not be swayed by yours.

Back on hand... Why the F does everything have to be run from a vaccuum pump?! Just use electronic motors like the rest pf the world, I don't give a **** how loud my door locks are when I'm locking the car up for the night haha